On 12/4/2005 4:33 AM, Michael Riess wrote:
I will do the following:
- switch to 10k buffers on a 1GB machine, 20k buffers on a 2GB machine
- try to optimize my connection polls to remember which apps (groups of
30 tables) were accessed, so that there is a better chance of using caches
- "swap o
William Yu schrieb:
> Michael Riess wrote:
>>> Well, I'd think that's were your problem is. Not only you have a
>>> (relatively speaking) small server -- you also share it with other
>>> very-memory-hungry services! That's not a situation I'd like to be in.
>>> Try putting Apache and Tomcat else
Michael Riess wrote:
Well, I'd think that's were your problem is. Not only you have a
(relatively speaking) small server -- you also share it with other
very-memory-hungry services! That's not a situation I'd like to be in.
Try putting Apache and Tomcat elsewhere, and leave the bulk of the 1GB
On 12/3/2005 11:41 AM, Michael Riess wrote:
Alvaro Herrera schrieb:
Michael Riess wrote:
Shared memory ... I currently use 1500 buffers for 50 connections, and
performance really suffered when I used 3000 buffers. The problem is
that it is a 1GB machine, and Apache + Tomcat need about 400MB.
On 12/3/05, Michael Riess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera schrieb:
> > Michael Riess wrote:
> >
> >> Shared memory ... I currently use 1500 buffers for 50 connections, and
> >> performance really suffered when I used 3000 buffers. The problem is
> >> that it is a 1GB machine, and Apache
Alvaro Herrera schrieb:
Michael Riess wrote:
Shared memory ... I currently use 1500 buffers for 50 connections, and
performance really suffered when I used 3000 buffers. The problem is
that it is a 1GB machine, and Apache + Tomcat need about 400MB.
Well, I'd think that's were your problem is
Michael Riess wrote:
> Shared memory ... I currently use 1500 buffers for 50 connections, and
> performance really suffered when I used 3000 buffers. The problem is
> that it is a 1GB machine, and Apache + Tomcat need about 400MB.
Well, I'd think that's were your problem is. Not only you have
Jan Wieck schrieb:
On 12/2/2005 6:01 PM, Michael Riess wrote:
Hi,
thanks for your comments so far - I appreciate it. I'd like to narrow
down my problem a bit:
As I said in the other thread, I estimate that only 20% of the 15,000
tables are accessed regularly. So I don't think that vacuumin
On 12/2/2005 6:01 PM, Michael Riess wrote:
Hi,
thanks for your comments so far - I appreciate it. I'd like to narrow
down my problem a bit:
As I said in the other thread, I estimate that only 20% of the 15,000
tables are accessed regularly. So I don't think that vacuuming or the
number of
Hi,
thanks for your comments so far - I appreciate it. I'd like to narrow
down my problem a bit:
As I said in the other thread, I estimate that only 20% of the 15,000
tables are accessed regularly. So I don't think that vacuuming or the
number of file handles is a problem. Have a look at thi
10 matches
Mail list logo
